The EF wrote this for the people whose job it is to be skeptical, not those of us who already believe. It reads like an internal due diligence memo a central bank would build before picking a settlement layer. It's objective, and unapologetic in comparing Ethereum to other chains. It explains the importance of different evaluation criteria to set the table before laying out the facts on Ethereum's dominance: Page 5: Quantifies security cost. Finalizing a fraudulent transaction on Ethereum costs about $50.7B to pull off, against $76B staked. Your stake gets slashed on the way out. That's more than Solana, BNB Chain and TRON hold combined. Page 28: Want to know who really controls a chain Look at genesis distribution. ETH: ~17% to insiders. Other chains were 50-90% to insiders. Check the charts. Page 37: Zero outages since 2015. None of the other players compared can say that. Page 38: Ethereum runs 5+ independent clients. Other L1s compared run 1-2. They explain the importance of client diversity too. Page 47: "Public blockchains aggregate global liquidity. Stablecoins, tokenized securities, and financial primitives on Ethereum are immediately usable across a broad market of participants. Permissioned ledgers remain liquidity-constrained by design. Even when technically functional, they often fail to achieve economic relevance beyond the initiating consortium." It goes on from there. This is a great information source that I hope becomes one of the first resources governments and institutions reference when considering their settlement network.